Quining qualia.

Post Reply New Topic

So it is a bunch of BS? Thoughts are thought up by the thinker, and Senses/Emotions/Feelings are felt by the Feeler. to deny that I thought to type what I have is stupid. How can you get to science from philosophical nonsense like qualia? If qualia is a name for something like mental process, it exists, as it was my mental process to write as I have. It's like arguing with your own being to deny your mind thinks what it does. The fact is anything you don't hear when deaf is real, anything you still hear are just in your head, does this make sense? Close your eyes, Can you still see in darkness?

I think you are getting it backwards. To deny qualia is to deny experience, thoughts, beliefs etc.
Dennett ( if he were consistent) would say that there is nothing wrong with torture because there is no such thing as pain. Pain is an example of qualia.

Oh, ok so it isn't bullcrap. I was just a little shocked at how simple the concept was to even be talking about it. I thought about a clown just now, it is in my name! (you get the picture) So what is the point, disproving God, or saying everybody has a right to their opinion?

What is BS is Dennett's contention that pain, beliefs, hate, love....in other words qualia do not exist.
I can imagine Dennett talking to his wife, " I am not in love with you! The only thing that is happening is that my p fibers* in my brain are firing!"
* C-fibers firing = pain to an eliminative materialist like Dennett. In other words only C fibers firing are real. Pain is just another word for c fibers firing. I have no idea what the fibers in the brain that cause feelings of love are called. But p fibers will serve as a temporary substitute.

So the "It is only chemical reactions" argument! Yeah, the fact that we can decide on how to react on those chemical reactions prove thhis false. Without tis ability, perseverance would be a fairytale.

“So what is the point, disproving God, or saying everybody has a right to their opinion?”
appletheclown
Start at 2;23
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRs2TnP9H8
First of all I am and have always been very pro science. However, Dennett’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism is not real science. It goes to such absurd extremes that he denies that he has feelings! In other words he thinks everything is dead including himself.

What is wrong is that?

What is 'your' decision? Do you think it magically pops out?

Reason?

Just because it is counter intuitive therefore it is wrong? So much for your 'pro science'.


Do you think dead/alive is anything more than chemistry? Are you a vitalist?

Where did you see 'Empirically determined ( in Dennett's mind) implies intersubjectivity'? That is clearly not the point of your quote.



The argument is how can you (and only you) determine what 'qualia' you have? Earlier I asked how do you know you are not a p-zombie. All you replied was making the same baseless assertion that you have 'direct access' to it. If your knowledge were so clear, there would be a simple answer to the inverted qualia problem you quoted.

There exist things which are not inter-subjective.

ruveyn

Agreed, unfortunately Dennett is incapable of seeing the obvious.
How can I debate 0100100 when he believes that everything he says is meaningless?

I know that I like coffee. True, I do not know if what I taste (qualia) as coffee is the same as what you taste as coffee. * Since your qualia is not intersubjective (communicateable) with mine , Dennett would say that my saying that I like coffee is meaningless. In other words, Dennett would say that I have only my experience (qualia) to rely on and so my statement is not empirical. I obviously disagree with Dennett. Empiricism relys on qualia (experience).
Lets go further. Suppose I have no idea if what I tasted yesterday is the same taste.However, I know that I like it. "Like" is a qualia! So, when Dennett uses the word "like" (pleasure etc) he doesn't mean it. In other words,if I said"I do not remember if this coffee tastes the same as a year ago, all I know is that I like " (pleasure). Dennett would dismiss that statement as gibberish! All that Dennett has accomplished is to make the facile point that I cannot experience past qualia. In other words I cannot today feel the pain I experienced when at 12 years old when I fell off my bike. True, I cannot say that my experience of pain when I was 12 is the identical sensation as today,when I fell off my bike. However, I know that I felt pain (disliked it) then and I disliked it today.
* If I did know, then I would not be talking about qualia (experiences). Here we see the circularity of Dennett's argument.

Last edited by wittgenstein on 30 May 2013, 7:56 pm, edited 9 times in total.

I never said that what Dennett says (I would say "believes" but Dennett does not believe in beliefs!) is wrong because it is counter intuitive. I showed how his argument is invalid and then drew the obvious implications.

Obviously, I believe in qualia. I believe that I experience pain, pleasure and beliefs. However, lets suppose that Dennett is correct, qualia do not exist. One can reach a correct conclusion thru an absurd argument.
For example,
1. Dogs are mammals.
2. Earth is a planet.
3. Therefore, North Carolina is part of the USA.
The point of this thread is that Dennett made an absurd argument. Of course with such a controversial topic as "we experience things" ( it amazes me that such a proposition is controversial ) it is only natural that it will sway into the related topic, are qualia real.

"Just because it is counter intuitive therefore it is wrong? So much for your 'pro science."
01001011
I agree with Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that I do not love my wife, feel pain and pleasure and do not have any beliefs is an extraordinary claim! But then again I will never believe it, because if it is true I never had and never will have beliefs!

In what way 'like' is qualia? In the same way as '1+1=2' is 'meaning' qualia? This proves your idea of qualia is not clear at all.


Again if 'like' is qualia, then how do you know the 'like' in the past is the same as 'like' now, any more than 'taste' qualia of coffee?


At least you now concur you don't know past qualia!! !! This brings us to

Evidence 3) Visual field. Only a small part oy your eyes is sensitive to color. A large part of color you 'see' must be from past memory, even it is 0.1s ago. How do you know which part of your color vision is your real time 'qualia'?


If you don't know your 'pain qualia when you where 12', then how is your statement more meaningful than 'I know you felt pain (dislike it) because I see your c-fiber firing'?